US–Russia Nord Stream Talks: Can the Pipeline Reopen Despite EU Sanctions?

Introduction

Nord Stream cannot lawfully resume commercial gas deliveries to Germany solely on the basis of an agreement between the United States and Russia. European Union law now restricts transactions necessary to operate the pipelines and separately prohibits imports of Russian natural gas, subject to limited transitional arrangements. American sanctions relief or a change in ownership would not displace these European restrictions. Any proposed reopening would also confront Germany's regulatory requirements and the unresolved consequences of the damage sustained by the pipelines in 2022.

The prospect of a US–Russia Nord Stream deal returned to diplomatic attention in October 2026. Reuters reported, citing five people familiar with the discussions, that American and Russian officials, including Jared Kushner and Kirill Dmitriev, had considered involving US investors in the pipeline projects. A White House official, however, denied that Nord Stream-specific discussions had taken place recently, and the extent of Washington's support remained unclear. No agreement to restore gas deliveries had been publicly confirmed (Reuters, 2026). The reported proposals concern potential commercial participation, not an authorization to resume operations.

The distinction matters because Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 have different operational histories. Nord Stream 1 transported Russian gas to Germany until deliveries ceased in 2022, before explosions damaged both of its lines that September. Nord Stream 2 was completed but never entered commercial service. Germany's Federal Network Agency suspended its certification procedure in November 2021, and the project subsequently lost the German government's favorable security-of-supply assessment. In January 2025, the Danish Energy Agency reported that one Nord Stream 2 line remained intact and pressurized. That assessment did not establish its readiness for commercial operation in 2026 (Federal Network Agency, 2021; Danish Energy Agency, 2025).

The legal obstacles have become more substantial since the pipelines ceased operating. Article 5af of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, introduced by Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 and amended by Regulation (EU) 2026/1848, prohibits transactions connected with the completion, operation, maintenance, or use of Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2, as well as specified related financing. Its exceptions address urgent safety and environmental needs, while other narrowly defined transactions may receive authorization from competent authorities. These provisions do not create a general route to commercial reopening.

A separate restriction concerns the gas itself. Regulation (EU) 2026/261 establishes a phased prohibition on imports of natural gas originating in or exported directly or indirectly from Russia. The transitional period for qualifying short-term pipeline supply contracts ended on June 17, 2026. Certain long-term contracts concluded before June 17, 2025, may remain eligible for temporary exemptions until September 30, 2027, subject to statutory conditions and a possible limited extension. Introducing an American investor or intermediary would neither change the gas's Russian origin nor establish eligibility for an existing-contract exemption.

These restrictions place the reported negotiations within a broader conflict between bilateral energy diplomacy and European regulatory authority. Germany's government opposes reopening the pipelines, while certification remains a separate matter for the competent German authorities under national and EU energy law. Even a commercially viable arrangement supported by Washington and Moscow would face decisions that neither government can make on the European Union's behalf. The possibility of renewed gas deliveries consequently depends on the interaction of sanctions, import legislation, regulatory approval, and the practical condition of the infrastructure.

1. What the US–Russia Nord Stream Talks Establish

The possibility of restoring Russian gas exports to Europe entered US–Russia diplomatic discussions in 2025, alongside negotiations concerning the war in Ukraine. On May 8, Reuters reported, citing eight sources familiar with the discussions, that American and Russian officials had considered arrangements through which US investors or intermediaries might facilitate renewed gas trade. Nord Stream formed part of these proposals, although the discussions also concerned other transportation routes and possible investment in Gazprom. The reporting established an interest in future commercial cooperation rather than an agreed plan to restore pipeline operations (Hirtenstein and Rashad, 2025).

According to two of Reuters' sources, US presidential envoy Steve Witkoff and Kirill Dmitriev, Russia's presidential investment envoy and head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund, discussed natural gas during contacts associated with negotiations over Ukraine. The fund denied that such discussions were taking place. The following day, however, senior Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov publicly acknowledged that the restoration of Russian gas supplies to Europe was being raised with American representatives. His statement confirmed the broader subject of the discussions without establishing the specific investment arrangements described by anonymous sources (Reuters, 2025).

The commercial possibilities were distinct. One involved American investors acquiring shares in existing pipeline infrastructure or interests in Gazprom. Another envisaged US companies purchasing Russian gas and reselling it to European customers. The latter arrangement could have placed an American company between Gazprom and European purchasers without transferring ownership of the underlying pipelines. Such proposals would have different consequences for shareholders, lenders, contractual rights, and sanctions compliance. Their inclusion in diplomatic discussions did not establish that any particular structure had been accepted.

A potential American intermediary also raised an immediate regulatory problem. Changing the contractual seller would not change where the gas was extracted. Nor would American participation eliminate restrictions on transactions necessary to operate Nord Stream. The distinction became more consequential as the European Union introduced an infrastructure-specific prohibition in July 2025 and subsequently adopted separate legislation phasing out imports of Russian natural gas.

Renewed reports emerged on October 8, 2026. Reuters stated, citing five people familiar with the situation, that senior American and Russian representatives had discussed bringing a US investor into Nord Stream. The reported participants included Jared Kushner and Dmitriev, who had met in Moscow and New York. Reuters nevertheless acknowledged uncertainty over the extent to which those particular meetings involved the pipelines. A White House official denied that Nord Stream-specific discussions had occurred recently, while indicating that any business arrangement would need to benefit American taxpayers and companies (O'Donnell, Slattery and Gauthier-Villars, 2026).

Dmitriev had also met representatives of the US Departments of Energy and the Treasury in September 2026 concerning potential bilateral energy initiatives. Those contacts provided a wider diplomatic setting for the reported proposals, but they did not establish Washington's commitment to reopening Nord Stream. The White House's position and the accounts attributed to people familiar with the discussions cannot be treated as identical forms of evidence. As of October 8, 2026, no publicly confirmed, binding US–Russia Nord Stream agreement provided for the restoration of commercial gas deliveries.

European resistance remained substantial. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had rejected renewed dependence on Russian energy in May 2025. In October 2026, Germany's economy and energy ministry reaffirmed that reopening Nord Stream was not desired and would require governmental approval. Polish authorities also remained opposed to restoring the pipelines as a route for Russian gas. These positions indicate that American and Russian negotiators could not assume European political acceptance, even if they reached agreement over ownership or future profits (Hirtenstein and Rashad, 2025; O'Donnell, Slattery and Gauthier-Villars, 2026).

The negotiations consequently raise several different questions. An American investor might seek an equity interest in Nord Stream AG, participation in a transaction involving Nord Stream 2 AG, or a position in the purchase and resale of Russian gas. Each arrangement would require examination of its actual counterparties and legal effects. None would independently confer the regulatory authority needed to transport gas into Germany. The proposed commercial structures remain subject to European restrictions that Washington and Moscow cannot remove through bilateral agreement.

2. Nord Stream 1 and 2 Present Different Physical Problems

Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 were constructed as separate offshore gas transportation systems connecting Russia with Germany through the Baltic Sea. Each comprises two parallel pipeline lines designed for a combined annual capacity of approximately 55 billion cubic meters. Their aggregate designed capacity was around 110 billion cubic meters annually. Those figures describe the projects' original engineering specifications, not their present transport capability or the volume of Russian gas that could lawfully enter the European Union.

The two projects followed different commercial and regulatory paths. Nord Stream 1 entered service in stages, with its first line becoming operational in November 2011 and the second in October 2012. It transported Russian gas to the German transmission network for nearly a decade. Nord Stream 2 was completed in 2021 but never began commercial deliveries. Its certification procedure was suspended before Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and Germany subsequently withdrew the security-of-supply assessment needed for the regulatory process to proceed (Federal Network Agency, 2021, 2022).

The explosions of September 2022 added a physical barrier to an already deteriorating commercial relationship. Nord Stream 1 had stopped delivering gas before the explosions, while Nord Stream 2 had never operated commercially. Three of the four offshore lines sustained ruptures. Although Nord Stream 2's second line did not rupture, subsequent judicial evidence recorded localized external damage to that line. The distinction is significant: Nord Stream 1 presents extensive repair requirements, whereas the surviving Nord Stream 2 line requires a separate assessment of its condition and readiness for operation (Nord Stream AG v Lloyd's Insurance Company SA & Anor, 2026).

2.1 Nord Stream 1: Damage and Former Operations

Nord Stream 1 connected the Russian coast near Vyborg with the German Baltic coast at Lubmin. Its construction began in 2010, and both lines were operational by October 2012. The system became an important route for Russian natural gas entering Germany, with onward connections to the European transmission network. Unlike Nord Stream 2, it had an established commercial history involving transportation arrangements, European customers, and a pipeline operator that had previously managed regular deliveries.

Nord Stream AG, the Swiss company responsible for the project, was established with a controlling 51 percent Gazprom interest. Its documented shareholder structure allocated 15.5 percent each to German interests associated with Wintershall and E.ON, and 9 percent each to Nederlandse Gasunie and ENGIE. Corporate changes affecting the original shareholders require care when identifying the precise entities holding those interests in 2026. Reuters nevertheless confirmed the continuing significance of Gazprom's controlling position and the substantial German, French, and Dutch interests in the company (O'Donnell, Slattery and Gauthier-Villars, 2026).

These interests would complicate a proposed acquisition by an American investor. Purchasing Gazprom's majority holding would be different from acquiring the company's assets or restructuring its existing financial obligations. Shareholder rights, corporate approvals, creditor claims, and contractual restrictions would depend on the actual transaction and the governing corporate documents. A majority shareholding alone does not establish that every contractual right or obligation associated with the pipeline could be transferred without further legal consequences.

The interruption of Nord Stream 1 deliveries preceded the physical attack. During the summer of 2022, gas flows declined amid disputes concerning equipment, sanctions, and supply arrangements. Gazprom suspended deliveries at the end of August and announced in early September that flows would not resume following maintenance. Explosions on September 26 subsequently ruptured both Nord Stream 1 lines, creating substantial underwater damage. The physical destruction made any return to service materially more difficult, but it should not be presented as the event that initially stopped gas deliveries.

The identity and legal responsibility of those responsible for the explosions remain separate from the established facts of the damage. On August 19, 2026, Germany's Federal Public Prosecutor announced the arrest in Croatia of Ukrainian national Vladimir Z., alleging that he had participated in placing explosives on the pipelines. The allegations also referred to another suspect, Serhii K. These prosecutorial statements concern suspected criminal conduct; they are not judicial findings of guilt or determinations of state responsibility. The damage itself has been documented independently through technical investigations and judicial proceedings (German Federal Public Prosecutor, 2026).

Any restoration of Nord Stream 1 would require substantial engineering work. The ruptured sections would need to be surveyed, with particular attention to the condition of pipe segments exposed to seawater, the consequences of explosive damage, and the integrity of adjoining infrastructure. Decisions about replacement sections, underwater installation, testing, and repressurization would depend on specialist assessments. The original pipeline capacity and its former operating record cannot establish the feasibility or cost of repairs after several years of inactivity.

Insurance presents a further commercial obstacle. In Nord Stream AG v Lloyd's Insurance Company SA & Anor [2026] EWHC 1685 (Comm), the English Commercial Court found that the damage fell within a war-related exclusion under the insurance policies before it. The judgment concerned insurance coverage, not a criminal determination identifying the perpetrators. It illustrates why the financing of repairs cannot be assessed solely by reference to engineering costs. The availability of insurance proceeds, contractual remedies, and alternative financing would influence any reconstruction proposal.

Restoring the damaged lines would still leave Nord Stream AG needing permissible contractors, transport arrangements, and access to the German gas network. Commercial feasibility would depend on the participation of existing stakeholders and potential buyers under the applicable legal restrictions. Its former status as an operating pipeline supplies evidence of the project's historical function, but not an exemption from legislation adopted after deliveries ceased.

2.2 Nord Stream 2: An Intact Line Without Certification

Nord Stream 2 presents a different physical prospect because line B did not suffer the rupture that disabled the other three offshore lines. On January 28, 2025, the Danish Energy Agency reported that this line remained intact and contained natural gas at approximately 54 bar, reduced from an earlier pressure of 103 bar. The agency also authorized preservation work on the damaged line A, including measures designed to prevent further gas releases and the entry of oxygenated seawater (Danish Energy Agency, 2025).

The description of line B as intact requires qualification. Evidence considered by the English Commercial Court in July 2026 recorded an external dent affecting that line during the September 2022 explosions, although no rupture or leak occurred at that location. The difference between a pipe that has not ruptured and one proven safe for renewed operation is substantial. The available historical assessments do not establish its full technical condition in October 2026 (Nord Stream AG v Lloyd's Insurance Company SA & Anor, 2026).

Nord Stream 2 AG is a separate Swiss company from the operator of Nord Stream 1. Under the financing arrangements announced in April 2017, Gazprom remained its sole shareholder. ENGIE, OMV, Shell, Uniper, and Wintershall agreed to provide long-term financing amounting to half of the project's estimated €9.5 billion construction cost, with individual commitments of up to €950 million. These companies participated as financiers rather than equity shareholders in Nord Stream 2 AG (Gazprom, 2017).

That historical financing structure should not be confused with the project's current financial position. Nord Stream 2 AG subsequently entered Swiss debt-restructuring proceedings and reached an arrangement with creditors in May 2025. The existence of restructuring proceedings does not establish that the company's assets became freely available for acquisition. Any American investment proposal would have to account for the corporate and creditor arrangements applicable when a transaction was negotiated (Reuters, 2025).

Certification remains a distinct obstacle. On November 16, 2021, Germany's Federal Network Agency suspended the procedure for certifying Nord Stream 2 AG as an independent transmission operator. The regulator determined that certification required an operator organized under German law for the German section of the pipeline. A proposed German subsidiary would need to own and operate that section and satisfy the applicable requirements of the German Energy Industry Act, including the rules governing independent transmission operators (Federal Network Agency, 2021).

The position changed further on February 22, 2022, when Germany's Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action withdrew its previous security-of-supply assessment. The Federal Network Agency subsequently recorded that the withdrawal brought the certification process to an end. Nord Stream 2 had never obtained permission to enter commercial service, and the surviving line's physical condition could not remedy the absence of that authorization (Federal Network Agency, 2022).

Any renewed proposal would require a current integrity assessment and satisfaction of the applicable German and EU regulatory requirements. The preservation authorization granted by Denmark concerned the management of damaged infrastructure within its jurisdiction; it was not permission to transport Russian gas into Germany. Nord Stream 2 may be physically less damaged than Nord Stream 1, but its nonoperational history, corporate obligations, and unresolved certification position prevent the surviving line from being treated as an immediately available supply route.

3. Article 5af: The EU's Ban on Nord Stream Operations

The European Union adopted an infrastructure-specific restriction on Nord Stream in July 2025 as part of its eighteenth package of sanctions against Russia. Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 inserted Article 5af into Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014, the principal regulation implementing sectoral restrictive measures in response to Russia's actions destabilizing Ukraine. The prohibition took effect on July 20, 2025. Council Regulation (EU) 2026/1848 subsequently amended its authorization provisions in July 2026 without removing the underlying restriction.

Article 5af(1) prohibits direct or indirect transactions connected with the completion, operation, maintenance, or use of Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2. A separate prohibition covers transactions connected with financing their completion, operation, or use. The latter clause does not expressly enumerate maintenance, although a particular maintenance-related financing arrangement may still require assessment under the broader transaction prohibition. The precise statutory wording matters because it determines which activities are prohibited and whether an exception or authorization can apply (Council of the European Union, 2025, 2026).

The provision differs from sanctions directed exclusively at designated individuals or companies. Its subject is the infrastructure and the specified activities associated with it. An operator might consequently be prohibited from providing services connected with the pipelines even when the immediate contractual counterparty is not separately subject to an asset freeze. Engineering services, operational support, equipment procurement, and financing arrangements require examination according to their actual connection with the prohibited activities.

The prohibition must nevertheless be applied within the jurisdictional limits of EU law. Article 13 of Regulation 833/2014 extends its application to activities within EU territory, EU nationals, entities incorporated under Member State law, certain vessels and aircraft, and business conducted wholly or partly within the Union. It does not create unlimited jurisdiction over every transaction undertaken abroad by a foreign investor. Commercial operation of pipelines delivering gas into Germany, however, would necessarily involve activities subject to European law.

An American acquisition would not change this legal position merely by altering the nationality of a shareholder. Article 5af identifies Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 directly. Its application does not depend on Gazprom retaining a specified percentage of ownership. A transaction designed to restore their commercial use would have to be assessed under the prohibition regardless of whether the prospective investor was American, Russian, or European. The precise rights being acquired would still matter for determining which transactions were involved.

The possible participation of the Russian Direct Investment Fund introduces a separate consideration. Article 5ag of Regulation 833/2014 prohibits specified transactions with the fund, entities it owns or controls, certain listed entities associated with its investments or financial services, and persons acting on behalf of covered entities. Since Kirill Dmitriev heads the fund, its potential role would require attention if a proposed arrangement involved the fund or another covered counterparty. His participation in diplomatic discussions does not, without additional evidence, establish that such a prohibited transaction exists.

Article 5af also operates independently of the EU legislation phasing out Russian gas imports. Regulation (EU) 2026/261 prohibits imports of natural gas originating in or exported directly or indirectly from Russia, subject to temporary exemptions for qualifying existing supply contracts. It was adopted under the Union's energy and common commercial policy competences rather than as an amendment to the sanctions framework. A transaction could consequently face an infrastructure prohibition under Regulation 833/2014 and a separate import prohibition under Regulation 2026/261.

This separation restricts the value of ownership-based proposals. Acquiring shares does not authorize the prohibited operation of a pipeline, and purchasing Russian gas through an American intermediary does not change its origin. Any commercial arrangement would have to satisfy the legal requirements applicable to both the infrastructure and the commodity transported through it.

3.1 Safety Exceptions Are Not Commercial Authorizations

Article 5af does not require damaged offshore infrastructure to be abandoned where urgent action is necessary to prevent serious harm. Paragraph 2 excludes transactions strictly necessary for the urgent prevention or mitigation of an event likely to have a serious and significant impact on human health and safety, maritime shipping, or the environment. It also covers responses to natural disasters. The exception is directed toward defined threats and the necessity of responding to them, rather than the economic value of preserving the pipelines.

This distinction is relevant to Nord Stream's damaged sections. Activities intended to prevent a release of residual gas, limit environmental harm, or address an immediate maritime hazard may have a different legal basis from interventions designed primarily to prepare a pipeline for commercial service. Denmark's January 2025 preservation authorization illustrates the safety considerations associated with the damaged Nord Stream 2 infrastructure. That authorization preceded Article 5af and cannot itself determine the legality of transactions undertaken after the EU prohibition entered into force.

Article 5af(3) establishes separate authorization grounds. Competent national authorities may permit strictly necessary transactions connected with winding down or restructuring a relevant entity where necessary to ensure the pipelines will not be used. They may also authorize specified transactions involving claims for compensation or recoveries, settlements, and judicial or arbitral proceedings. These mechanisms recognize that litigation, restructuring, and the settlement of legal obligations may continue even when ordinary commercial operation is prohibited.

The provision also addresses payments and recoveries arising under court orders, financing arrangements, insurance, warrants, and other contracts or agreements entered into before July 20, 2025. Such transactions are not automatically permitted because an underlying obligation exists. They must fall within the statutory authorization ground and satisfy its requirements. The distinction is relevant to Nord Stream's outstanding financing arrangements and disputes arising from the 2022 damage.

Maintenance is treated narrowly. Article 5af(3)(e) permits competent authorities to authorize regular maintenance services strictly necessary to prevent environmental or safety risks or negative effects on fisheries. It does not authorize maintenance for the general purpose of restoring commercial transportation capacity. The same physical intervention may sometimes serve several purposes, making the nature, necessity, and scope of the proposed work important to the legal assessment.

The July 2026 amendment expressly allowed competent authorities to impose conditions they considered appropriate when issuing authorizations under Article 5af(3). The procedure also requires draft authorizations to be submitted to the European Commission. Within 30 days, the Commission may issue an opinion stating that the proposed transaction would prejudice the Union's interests, and it must inform the Council of that opinion. The authorization remains a decision for the competent national authority under the applicable regulation; the Commission's opinion should not be characterized as an independent licensing decision (Council of the European Union, 2026).

Underwater surveys, engineering inspections, and preservation work must consequently be assessed according to their specific purpose and legal basis. A safety inspection may reveal information useful for future repairs without necessarily losing its protective character. Conversely, describing an extensive refurbishment program as maintenance would not establish eligibility for the derogation. The statutory requirement of strict necessity prevents the safety provisions from becoming a general means of restoring commercial operations.

The exceptions preserve space for managing the consequences of damaged infrastructure and resolving existing legal obligations. They do not provide a standing authorization to repair Nord Stream for renewed gas deliveries. Commercial reopening would remain subject to Article 5af's principal prohibition unless the relevant activity became lawful through an applicable authorization, exception, or change in the legislation.

3.2 The Limits of American Influence Over EU Sanctions

American participation could influence the financing and political prospects of a Nord Stream transaction, particularly if Washington altered sanctions affecting American investors, financial institutions, or the pipeline companies. US measures and EU restrictive measures, however, arise from different legal systems. An American license or waiver would address the relevant US prohibition only. It would not authorize transactions separately prohibited under Regulation 833/2014.

Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union establishes that EU regulations are binding in their entirety and directly applicable in Member States. European operators and authorities cannot disregard an applicable regulation because two non-EU governments have reached a political understanding. The same principle applies where an American company acquires an interest in a business whose operations require transactions within EU jurisdiction.

The sanctions framework is grounded in Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP and Council Regulation 833/2014, as amended. Their legal foundations and procedures differ. The underlying restrictive measures are adopted within the Common Foreign and Security Policy framework, while Article 215 TFEU provides for the adoption of the necessary EU measures implementing the relevant economic restrictions. A change to the sanctions regime must follow the procedures applicable to the instruments concerned. It cannot be effected by an agreement between Washington and Moscow.

The Council's role is particularly important because Article 5af is a binding restriction adopted within that framework. Diplomatic negotiations might encourage Member States to reconsider particular measures, but a political commitment to future cooperation has no automatic effect on the regulation. Any proposed modification would need to be translated into a legally effective EU act. Until that occurred, transactions within Article 5af's scope would remain subject to the existing prohibition and its limited exceptions.

Germany possesses additional regulatory responsibilities. The Federal Network Agency is the competent authority for transmission-operator certification under the relevant German and EU energy rules. A change in US sanctions policy could not compel the agency to certify Nord Stream 2 or remove the statutory requirements governing its operation. The German government's opposition to reopening is a political position, while the missing certification and the EU transaction prohibition constitute separate legal barriers.

The institutional separation does not exclude coordinated negotiations. The United States, Russia, Germany, and EU institutions could discuss the future ownership of the pipelines, energy security, sanctions policy, and the conditions under which Russian gas might again enter European markets. Agreement among negotiators would nevertheless need to be followed by the legally required decisions. Commercial participation by American investors would remain insufficient where those decisions had not been taken.

This limitation extends to the proposed resale of Russian gas through US intermediaries. Such arrangements might alter contractual relationships and the distribution of commercial profits, but they would not substitute for compliance with EU restrictions on infrastructure transactions or Russian gas imports. The authority to modify those requirements belongs to the institutions empowered under EU law, not to the parties negotiating a prospective energy deal.

4. Russian Gas Faces a Separate EU Import Prohibition

Even if the European Union removed its prohibition on Nord Stream operations, commercial deliveries of Russian gas to Germany would remain subject to a second restriction. Regulation (EU) 2026/261, adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on January 26, 2026, establishes a phased prohibition on imports of natural gas originating in or exported directly or indirectly from Russia. Unlike Article 5af of Regulation 833/2014, which concerns transactions connected with two identified pipeline systems, the newer legislation regulates the importation of the commodity itself. It covers pipeline gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG), regardless of the commercial identity of the supplier.

The two measures rest on different legal foundations. Article 5af forms part of the EU's restrictive measures against Russia, implemented through the Common Foreign and Security Policy framework and Article 215 TFEU. Regulation 2026/261 was adopted under Articles 194(2) and 207 TFEU, concerning energy policy and the common commercial policy, through the ordinary legislative procedure. Published on February 2, 2026, it entered into force the following day. Its general import prohibition became applicable on March 18, 2026, subject to transitional exemptions, while the prior-authorization provisions became applicable on February 18 (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2026, Articles 3, 5 and 14).

This distinction limits what sanctions diplomacy alone could accomplish. Modifying Article 5af would address the legal status of transactions involving the pipelines, but it would not automatically alter the rules governing Russian gas entering the European market. A transmission system could consequently become available for lawful operation without providing a lawful means of importing the gas it was designed to transport. Reopening Nord Stream requires attention to both legal regimes, each of which establishes independent restrictions.

4.1 The 2026–2027 Phase-Out and Existing Contracts

Regulation 2026/261 distinguishes newly concluded supply arrangements from qualifying contracts entered into before June 17, 2025. Article 3 establishes the prohibition on Russian gas imports, while Article 4 provides temporary exemptions for specified preexisting contracts. These exemptions depend on the contract's date, duration, subsequent amendments, and compliance with the statutory conditions. An agreement does not qualify merely because it involves a supplier that previously delivered Russian gas to Europe.

The initial transitional periods have already expired. For qualifying short-term LNG contracts concluded before June 17, 2025, the import prohibition became applicable on April 25, 2026. The corresponding deadline for qualifying short-term pipeline gas contracts was June 17, 2026. Contracts concluded after the cutoff date do not benefit from those exemptions. The distinction prevents new commercial arrangements from obtaining transitional protection simply by adopting the contractual structure of an earlier supply relationship (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2026, Article 4(1)).

Long-term contracts receive additional, but temporary, protection. Qualifying LNG supply contracts concluded before June 17, 2025, remain exempt until January 1, 2027. For qualifying long-term pipeline gas contracts, Article 4(2) postpones the application of the prohibition until September 30, 2027. These dates do not confer an unconditional right to import Russian gas. The importer must demonstrate that the relevant transaction falls within the prescribed contractual category and satisfies the regulation's requirements.

A limited extension of the pipeline gas exemption is possible until November 1, 2027. It depends on the European Commission identifying a risk that a particular Member State may fail to meet its underground gas storage filling target for 2027. The Commission must confirm that risk through an implementing decision by September 15, 2027. The extension would apply only in the Member State concerned and only to imports satisfying the underlying long-term contractual conditions. Nothing in the regulation establishes that Germany will qualify for this additional period.

Article 4(4) addresses a separate difficulty affecting landlocked countries. It permits certain short-term supply arrangements where they are necessary to fulfill a qualifying long-term pipeline contract whose original delivery point at an EU external border can no longer be used. The provision requires satisfaction of specific contractual and geographical conditions. It does not establish a general exemption for new Russian gas contracts or an independent legal basis for reopening Nord Stream.

Amendments to existing contracts are closely controlled. Article 4(5) preserves transitional eligibility for specified modifications, including reductions in contracted quantities or prices, changes to confidentiality provisions and operational procedures, transfers of obligations between affiliated undertakings, and changes required by judicial or arbitral proceedings. For landlocked countries, certain changes to national delivery points are also permitted. Other amendments may compromise eligibility. Article 4(6) further prevents imports under the transitional provisions from exceeding the contracted quantities, as defined by the regulation.

Importers relying on an exemption must obtain prior authorization under Article 5. The application must contain information sufficient to establish contractual eligibility, including the date and duration of the agreement, the parties, contracted volumes, delivery points, and relevant amendments. For these transitional imports, the required information must ordinarily be submitted at least one month before the gas enters the EU customs territory. Other categories of gas imports are subject to different documentary requirements and deadlines. Submission of the necessary information does not itself establish that the statutory conditions have been satisfied.

The emergency mechanism under Article 13(2) serves a different purpose. Following a declared gas supply emergency involving a serious threat to energy security, the Commission may temporarily suspend the import prohibition in one or more Member States. Each suspension is limited to a maximum of four weeks and may be renewed only while the prescribed emergency conditions continue. Only short-term supply contracts are permitted under this mechanism. It offers no permanent exemption for Russian gas and does not independently displace Article 5af's restrictions on Nord Stream operations.

4.2 Why American Intermediaries Cannot Change Gas Origin

Proposals involving American companies purchasing Russian gas and reselling it to European customers raise a question distinct from pipeline ownership. A US intermediary could change the identity of the contractual seller, receive payment from European purchasers, and distribute commercial revenues through a different corporate structure. None of those changes would necessarily alter the characteristics of the gas being imported.

Article 3 of Regulation 2026/261 applies to natural gas originating in or exported directly or indirectly from Russia. Article 2 defines the country of production primarily by reference to where the gas was extracted, regardless of subsequent liquefaction or regasification elsewhere. It also treats Russia as the country of production where gas extracted in another country is liquefied or regasified in Russia. The relevant legal inquiry consequently extends beyond the nationality of the trader or the location where a sale is concluded (European Parliament and Council of the European Union, 2026, Articles 2 and 3).

A transaction involving Gazprom, an American trading company, and a German purchaser would remain subject to the prohibition if the imported gas met the regulation's Russian-origin or export criteria. Reselling the commodity through a US company would not create an exemption. The same principle applies to Russian gas routed through intermediary countries before entering the Union. The prohibition addresses indirect exports as well as direct deliveries, limiting the ability to alter legal treatment through changes in the supply chain.

The regulation reinforces this approach through documentary and monitoring requirements. Article 5 requires information establishing the country of production and relevant contractual arrangements, while Article 6 provides for monitoring and enforcement cooperation among national authorities and EU bodies. Gas arriving through specified connections with Russia or Belarus is subject to presumptions concerning its Russian export origin. These rules require examination of the underlying supply characteristics rather than reliance on the contractual identity of the immediate seller.

A distinction remains between an import prohibited by Article 3 and deliberate circumvention. Russian gas can fall within the prohibition without proof that the importer intended to evade EU law. Allegations of circumvention require separate consideration of the relevant conduct and evidence. American commercial participation could therefore affect financing and contractual relationships, but it could not independently transform prohibited Russian gas imports into lawful transactions.

5. US Sanctions, German Certification, and EU Litigation

The European restrictions are only part of Nord Stream's legal position. American sanctions affect Nord Stream 2 AG and transactions involving designated entities, while Germany retains authority over the certification and regulation of transmission infrastructure within its jurisdiction. Nord Stream 2 AG has also challenged both the infrastructure-specific EU prohibition and the separate Russian gas import legislation before the General Court. These legal proceedings and regulatory requirements arise from different sources of authority.

A transaction permissible under one regime may remain prohibited under another. American sanctions relief would not establish compliance with German energy legislation, and a successful challenge to one EU regulation would not necessarily invalidate the other. The consequences also depend on which pipeline company, investor, lender, or contractor participates in the proposed arrangement.

The distinction between Nord Stream AG and Nord Stream 2 AG is especially relevant. The former operated Nord Stream 1 before deliveries ceased in 2022; the latter never obtained certification to begin commercial operations. Their different corporate and regulatory positions prevent a single authorization or restructuring proposal from being treated as sufficient for both projects.

5.1 American Sanctions and Presidential Waiver Powers

The Protecting Europe's Energy Security Act of 2019 (PEESA), as amended, established sanctions directed at specified activities associated with the construction and completion of Nord Stream 2 and TurkStream. Executive Order 14039, issued in August 2021, provided additional authority for implementing the PEESA sanctions framework. These measures were directed toward identified persons, entities, vessels, and activities associated with the projects rather than the general ownership of all Russian gas infrastructure.

The Biden administration initially used PEESA's national-interest waiver authority in May 2021. The waiver covered Nord Stream 2 AG, its chief executive Matthias Warnig, and specified corporate officers. The administration maintained its opposition to the pipeline but concluded that granting relief under the relevant sanctions authority served American national interests. This demonstrated the possibility of executive sanctions relief without conferring any right to operate the pipeline under German or EU law (US Department of State, 2021).

The waiver was terminated in February 2022, following Russia's recognition of separatist-controlled territories in eastern Ukraine. On February 23, the US Department of the Treasury designated Nord Stream 2 AG and Warnig under the PEESA-related sanctions framework. Blocking measures generally prohibit US persons from dealing in the property or interests in property of designated persons where the applicable jurisdictional requirements are satisfied, unless the transaction is authorized.

The company's sanctions position became more restrictive in December 2024. The US Department of State designated Nord Stream 2 AG under Executive Order 14024, identifying its relationship with the Russian government as the basis for the additional measure. OFAC's sanctions listing consequently identifies Nord Stream 2 AG under both Executive Order 14024 and the PEESA-related authority implemented through Executive Order 14039 (US Department of State, 2024; US Department of the Treasury, 2024).

Multiple designations complicate the prospects for American investment. Relief granted under one authority would not automatically remove restrictions imposed under another. A prospective investor would need to establish which transactions were prohibited, whether the relevant counterparties remained blocked, and whether OFAC licensing, delisting, or another lawful authorization could provide the necessary relief. The restrictions could also affect financing and services provided by American persons or institutions.

Congress introduced additional measures through the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, enacted on September 18 as Public Law 119-111. Section 107 prohibits new investment in Russia by US persons and certain associated services and facilitation activities. Section 108 separately addresses new investment in Russia's energy sector and specified energy-related transactions. The principal prohibitions under these sections were scheduled to take effect on October 18, 2026, and had not yet become operative at the October 8 cutoff date (United States Congress, 2026).

The distinction between these provisions matters for Nord Stream. Purchasing shares in a Swiss-incorporated company, acquiring assets situated in Russia, and financing a Russian energy enterprise would not necessarily constitute identical legal transactions. Whether a particular investment falls within the statutory prohibitions depends on its substance, location, counterparties, and applicable definitions. The nationality of the investor and the incorporation of the target company do not, by themselves, resolve that assessment.

Section 115 of the 2026 Act permits the President to waive sanctions provisions, restrictions, or duties imposed under Title I. Before exercising that authority, the President must submit a written national-interest certification and an explanatory report to Congress. The waiver is distinct from licensing or delisting decisions under Executive Order 14024 and from relief available under PEESA. A prospective Nord Stream transaction could require consideration of more than one source of American sanctions authority.

Washington consequently possesses mechanisms capable of changing the legal position of particular investors or transactions. Their operation depends on the measures involved and the statutory conditions for relief. Even comprehensive American authorization would remain insufficient to permit commercial deliveries that were prohibited under EU law or lacked the necessary German regulatory approval.

5.2 German Certification and EU Gas Market Rules

Nord Stream 2's certification difficulties began before Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. On November 16, 2021, Germany's Federal Network Agency suspended the procedure for certifying Nord Stream 2 AG as an independent transmission operator. The regulator concluded that the German section of the pipeline would need to be owned and operated by an entity organized under German law. Nord Stream 2 AG proposed establishing a German subsidiary to perform that function (Federal Network Agency, 2021).

The proposed subsidiary was required to satisfy Sections 4a, 4b, and 10 to 10e of the German Energy Industry Act. These provisions concerned certification and the independence of transmission system operators, including the organizational requirements applicable to the independent transmission operator model. Incorporating a subsidiary would not, by itself, have completed certification. The Federal Network Agency also required the transfer of relevant assets and personnel and the submission of documentation demonstrating compliance.

Germany's position changed further on February 22, 2022, when the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs withdrew its previous favorable security-of-supply assessment. Without a positive assessment, the regulator could not issue a favorable certification decision. The procedure remained suspended; the withdrawal should not be confused with a formal judgment or decision definitively terminating the certification application. Nord Stream 2 consequently remained without authorization to begin commercial operations.

The relevant legal framework extends beyond the original application. Directive (EU) 2024/1788 and Regulation (EU) 2024/1789 revised the EU rules governing the internal markets for renewable gas, natural gas, and hydrogen. They address transmission system operators, unbundling, network access, and regulatory supervision. Regulation 2024/1789 is directly applicable within its prescribed scope, whereas the directive requires implementation through national legislation.

The directive's implementation position remained incomplete in October 2026. Member States were required to notify measures transposing its provisions by August 5, 2026. On September 25, the European Commission announced that only Italy had notified full transposition and that formal notices were being sent to the remaining 26 Member States, including Germany (European Commission, 2026). The legal assessment of a future German certification decision must consequently distinguish directly applicable EU rules, existing provisions of the German Energy Industry Act, and any additional national measures subsequently adopted.

Nord Stream 1 occupies a different regulatory position because it operated commercially before the September 2022 damage. Its former operating arrangements do not establish that every approval would remain sufficient following extensive repairs and a prolonged interruption. Equally, the precise requirements for recommissioning Nord Stream 1 cannot be assumed to be identical to the certification procedure applicable to Nord Stream 2. They would depend on the proposed operator, infrastructure works, and the German and EU law governing those activities.

Political approval presents a further difficulty. In October 2026, Germany's economy and energy ministry reaffirmed its opposition to reopening the pipelines and stated that governmental approval would be required (O'Donnell, Slattery and Gauthier-Villars, 2026). This position is distinct from the Federal Network Agency's statutory responsibilities, but the government's security-of-supply role remains relevant to Nord Stream 2. Neither a favorable American sanctions decision nor a change in pipeline ownership could dispense with the applicable German requirements.

5.3 Judicial Challenges to the EU Restrictions

Nord Stream 2 AG has brought separate actions before the General Court of the European Union challenging measures that obstruct the pipeline's commercial future. The first, Case T-722/25, Nord Stream 2 v Council, was filed on October 13, 2025. It challenges Article 5af of Regulation 833/2014, introduced by Council Regulation 2025/1494, insofar as the prohibition affects Nord Stream 2. The Council is the defendant because it adopted the contested sanctions legislation (General Court of the European Union, 2025).

The application raises several grounds challenging the provision's legality. These include allegations concerning manifest error of assessment, legislative precision, and principles of EU law. The company seeks annulment of the measure insofar as it applies to Nord Stream 2 or, alternatively, relief concerning particular parts of the provision. These are legal arguments advanced by the applicant; their inclusion in the proceedings does not establish that the Council exceeded its powers.

A second action concerns the Russian gas import phase-out. On April 27, 2026, Nord Stream 2 AG filed Case T-264/26, Nord Stream 2 v Parliament and Council. The application challenges Regulation 2026/261, adopted under Articles 194(2) and 207 TFEU. Both the European Parliament and the Council are defendants because they jointly adopted the legislation through the ordinary legislative procedure (General Court of the European Union, 2026).

The company contests, among other matters, the legal basis of the import prohibition. It argues that the regulation's substance resembles restrictive measures that should have been adopted under Article 215 TFEU. The argument concerns the boundary between the Union's energy and commercial policy competences and its sanctions framework. It remains a pleaded challenge, not an established conclusion that the Parliament and Council lacked legislative competence.

Neither action suspends the challenged legislation merely because proceedings have been initiated. Article 278 TFEU establishes that actions brought before the EU courts do not ordinarily have suspensory effect. The Court may order the suspension of a contested act where the applicable conditions are satisfied, but such relief requires a separate judicial determination. The existence of an annulment application does not itself permit transactions prohibited by Article 5af or imports prohibited by Regulation 2026/261.

The potential effect of a successful action would depend on the scope of the judgment. Annulment of the infrastructure-specific restriction would not automatically invalidate the import prohibition. Conversely, annulment of provisions governing Russian gas imports would not independently remove Article 5af. Any judgment would also have to be considered in light of the Court's powers concerning the effects of annulment, including Article 264 TFEU where relevant.

Judicial proceedings offer a means of challenging the validity of EU legislation, but they do not replace operational authorization. German certification, American sanctions, contractual arrangements, and technical requirements would remain separate questions. A successful challenge could remove a significant legal obstacle without establishing that Nord Stream was ready or entitled to resume commercial deliveries.

6. The Commercial and Technical Cost of Reopening

Legal authorization would not resolve Nord Stream's financial and engineering difficulties. The two projects have separate corporate structures, different operational histories, and distinct liabilities. Their commercial value depends not merely on the existence of offshore pipelines but on the availability of lawful transportation services, enforceable contracts, financing, and purchasers willing to accept Russian gas. No publicly confirmed US–Russia investment proposal establishes the current valuation of either project.

Nord Stream AG's ownership structure presents complications for a possible acquisition. Gazprom's controlling interest coexists with substantial European shareholdings, and the precise consequences of transferring particular interests would depend on corporate governance rules, existing agreements, and creditor rights. Purchasing shares would differ legally from acquiring the company's assets or undertaking a broader restructuring. The company's former operating history provides no assurance that its commercial arrangements could be restored on their previous terms.

Nord Stream 2 AG has faced separate financial difficulties. On May 9, 2025, the Cantonal Court of Zug confirmed a composition agreement concluded between the company and its creditors on April 30. The court announced on June 3 that the confirmation decision had become enforceable. The arrangement addressed the company's financial position but did not establish that its infrastructure could be acquired free of liabilities or operated without regulatory authorization (Cantonal Court of Zug, 2025).

For a prospective investor, the significance of the restructuring would depend on the rights and obligations remaining under the confirmed arrangement. Financing commitments made during construction cannot simply be treated as outstanding debt in identical amounts in 2026. Nor can the original construction cost establish the project's present market value. The legal status of creditor claims, contractual obligations, and any proposed transfer of assets would require examination within the relevant corporate and insolvency framework.

The condition of the pipelines presents a separate problem. Both Nord Stream 1 lines suffered ruptures in September 2022, creating substantial underwater damage. Recommissioning would require engineering assessments of the damaged sections, adjoining infrastructure, possible seawater intrusion, corrosion, and the safety of any replacement work. The necessary repairs and their cost would depend on technical findings that cannot be derived from the pipelines' original design capacity.

Nord Stream 2's surviving line offers an apparently less demanding physical alternative. In January 2025, the Danish Energy Agency identified line B as intact and containing gas at approximately 54 bar. That assessment did not establish its complete operational condition in October 2026. Prolonged inactivity, the condition of connected installations, and the requirements for pressure testing and safe operation would need independent assessment before commercial service could be contemplated (Danish Energy Agency, 2025).

Insurance uncertainty adds to the financial exposure. In Nord Stream AG v Lloyd's Insurance Company SA & Anor [2026] EWHC 1685 (Comm), decided on July 6, 2026, the English Commercial Court held that damage to the Nord Stream 1 pipelines fell within the war-related exclusion contained in the policies before it. The judgment concerned the contractual coverage available for those losses, not a general prohibition on insurance for offshore gas infrastructure.

The judgment also recorded an indentation affecting Nord Stream 1 Line 2, separate from the rupture damage. That finding should not be attributed to Nord Stream 2's surviving line. The distinction matters because the litigation concerned Nord Stream AG's insured infrastructure, while the technical condition of Nord Stream 2 Line B rests on different evidence. The Commercial Court's conclusions cannot substitute for an engineering assessment of the separate Nord Stream 2 system.

The broader commercial consequence of the insurance litigation concerns risk allocation. Investors and lenders would need to consider the availability and terms of future cover, exclusions addressing war-related losses, and the consequences of damage that might not be recoverable from insurers. These matters could affect financing costs and investment decisions. The judgment does not establish that future insurance would be unavailable, but it demonstrates the importance of policy wording when geopolitical conflict threatens energy infrastructure.

European gas markets have also changed substantially since 2022. The European Commission reports that Russian gas imports declined from approximately 152 billion cubic meters in 2021 to 36 billion cubic meters in 2025. Russia's share of total EU gas imports fell from around 45 percent to 12 percent over the same period. The reduction reflects the interruption of Russian supplies, diversification efforts, changes in energy demand, and the expansion of alternative import arrangements (European Commission, 2026).

Norway has become the Union's largest natural gas supplier. It accounted for approximately 31 percent of total EU gas imports in 2025 and 54 percent of pipeline gas imports. LNG has also assumed greater importance, supported by additional import capacity and purchases from a wider range of suppliers. Eurostat reports that the United States supplied approximately 53 percent of EU LNG imports in 2025, compared with 29 percent in 2021 (European Commission, 2026; Eurostat, 2026).

These developments complicate the commercial incentives surrounding American involvement in Nord Stream. The United States is already a major LNG supplier to Europe, while a reopened Baltic pipeline could introduce additional Russian gas into the same market. American investors might nevertheless regard participation in pipeline infrastructure as commercially attractive under different political and pricing conditions. Such interests cannot be treated as uniform across American companies or as evidence that reopening would necessarily benefit the United States.

Russia has an identifiable commercial interest in recovering access to European customers. Nord Stream was constructed to transport substantial volumes of Russian gas directly to Germany, and its inactivity has removed a previously important export route. Restored deliveries could generate revenue, but their commercial value would depend on prices, transport costs, regulatory conditions, and European demand. The existence of unused capacity does not establish that customers would purchase the available gas.

European importers would need lawful supply agreements, acceptable pricing, credit arrangements, and reliable transportation. Existing commitments to LNG suppliers and other pipeline exporters may influence their willingness to enter new Russian gas contracts. Energy security considerations would also remain relevant after the experience of supply interruptions in 2022. Even if the pipelines were repaired and regulatory authorization obtained, the commercial conditions required for sustained operation could remain unfavorable.

7. The Legal Conditions for Any Future Restart

A lawful Nord Stream reopening would require the resolution of several independent legal and operational obstacles. Article 5af of Regulation 833/2014 presently prohibits transactions associated with the completion, operation, maintenance, and use of the pipelines, subject to limited exceptions and derogations. Ordinary commercial deliveries do not fall within the provision's safety-related authorization mechanisms. Unless the prohibition were lawfully modified, annulled with the relevant legal effect, or otherwise ceased to apply, it would remain an obstacle to transactions within EU jurisdiction.

The Russian gas import prohibition creates a separate requirement. Regulation 2026/261 permits only specified transitional imports under qualifying existing contracts and establishes deadlines after which those exemptions cease to apply. The infrastructure could consequently become available for commercial use while the gas transported through it remained prohibited from entering the EU market. Any proposed arrangement would have to satisfy the import rules independently of the pipeline's legal status.

Other requirements depend on the transaction and infrastructure involved. American sanctions may restrict investments, payments, financing, or dealings with designated entities. Germany retains authority over the relevant transmission system approvals, including Nord Stream 2 certification. Repairs and recommissioning would also require technical assessments, appropriate operational arrangements, and financing. The precise requirements for Nord Stream 1 cannot automatically be equated with those applicable to Nord Stream 2.

The practical difficulty arises from the cumulative effect of these conditions. An American waiver could address a US restriction without resolving an EU prohibition. A favorable German regulatory decision could establish compliance with domestic energy law without authorizing prohibited gas imports. A successful judicial challenge to one EU measure might remove that particular obstacle while leaving other restrictions intact. Commercial reopening depends on satisfying the requirements applicable to the proposed project and transaction, rather than selecting one favorable route to authorization.

7.1 A Restart Before the 2027 Deadline

The remaining transitional protection under Regulation 2026/261 creates a limited theoretical possibility of importing Russian pipeline gas before September 30, 2027. Article 4(2) permits qualifying long-term supply contracts concluded before June 17, 2025, to continue temporarily, provided the relevant conditions are satisfied. The exemption is not available to a newly concluded agreement merely because the gas would travel through infrastructure constructed before that date.

The contractual position would require particular attention. Nord Stream 2 never entered commercial operation, and the reported investment discussions do not establish that a proposed restart would be supported by a qualifying preexisting supply contract. Nord Stream 1 previously transported gas under commercial arrangements, but their former existence does not establish their present validity or eligibility. Subsequent amendments, contractual rights, counterparties, and volume limitations would have to be assessed under Article 4.

Even an eligible contract would not resolve the infrastructure prohibition. Article 5af would still restrict transactions associated with operating the pipelines unless the relevant legal obstacle were removed. American sanctions could require separate relief, while German authorities would need to determine whether the proposed operator satisfied applicable regulatory requirements. Engineering inspections, repairs where necessary, and arrangements for transporting gas into the German network would add further steps.

Nord Stream 2 Line B offers a possible physical advantage because it did not suffer the ruptures affecting both Nord Stream 1 lines and Nord Stream 2 Line A. Its apparent structural condition does not establish operational readiness, however, and the pipeline has never been certified for commercial use. The surviving line would still need a current integrity assessment and the necessary regulatory authorization. Any supposed engineering advantage must be considered alongside those unresolved requirements.

The remaining time makes a pre-2027 restart particularly difficult. The September 30 deadline leaves little scope for completing a sequence involving changes to the EU infrastructure prohibition, any necessary American relief, German regulatory decisions, and technical preparations. The possible November 1 extension depends on a future Commission determination concerning a particular Member State's gas storage position. It cannot be assumed to apply to Germany or to a proposed Nord Stream transaction.

A limited restart remains a theoretical legal possibility only if a genuinely eligible contract exists and every other applicable requirement is satisfied before the exemption expires. No publicly confirmed US–Russia agreement as of October 8, 2026, established those conditions. The existence of transitional protection in EU legislation should not be mistaken for evidence that Nord Stream can realistically resume deliveries within the available period.

7.2 Reopening After 2027 Would Require EU Legal Change

The expiration of the transitional arrangements would remove the principal remaining contractual basis for ordinary imports of Russian pipeline gas under Regulation 2026/261. Qualifying long-term contracts remain protected only until September 30, 2027, subject to the limited possibility of a Member State-specific extension to November 1. Once the applicable deadline passes, those contracts would no longer provide an exemption from the prohibition.

A durable commercial reopening after the phase-out would ordinarily require changes to the EU legal framework, assuming the existing provisions remain in force. Modifying Article 5af would involve the sanctions framework established through Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP and Regulation 833/2014. Removing or altering the separate import prohibition would require action concerning Regulation 2026/261, adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure involving the European Parliament and the Council.

The institutional distinction is significant. The Council occupies a central position in the EU sanctions framework, subject to the legal procedures governing the relevant Common Foreign and Security Policy decisions and implementing regulations. Changes to Regulation 2026/261 would have to follow the procedures applicable to that legislative instrument. Political agreement over sanctions relief would not automatically amend legislation adopted under the Union's energy and commercial policy competences.

Judicial proceedings could also affect the validity of particular provisions. Nord Stream 2 AG has challenged both Article 5af and Regulation 2026/261 before the General Court. The legal consequences of a successful action would depend on the scope and terms of the judgment, including any determination concerning the effects of annulment. Litigation does not provide a general alternative to the authorization requirements governing pipeline operation, and an annulment affecting one restriction would not necessarily remove the others.

A wider diplomatic settlement concerning Russia and Ukraine might create political conditions in which European governments reconsider their energy restrictions. Negotiations could conceivably address sanctions relief, revised ownership arrangements, security guarantees, and future commercial relationships. These remain possible elements of a hypothetical settlement, not commitments established by the reported US–Russia discussions. European institutions would retain responsibility for adopting the legally effective measures within their competence.

Germany would also remain responsible for the regulatory decisions required under its energy legislation. Any prospective operator would need to satisfy the applicable certification and operational requirements, while the condition of the pipelines would have to support safe commercial use. European importers would face the separate economic question of whether renewed Russian gas purchases offered sufficient value and reliability compared with established alternatives.

The durability of a reopening would depend on these decisions being translated into binding law and workable commercial arrangements. American investment could form part of such a settlement, but the decisive permission to import Russian gas through Nord Stream would have to arise within the European legal order. Bilateral agreement between Washington and Moscow could not independently create that permission.

Also read

• Russia Sanctions Bill: Can Trump Impose 100% Tariffs on India and China?

• The legality of seizing Russian Central Bank assets

• U.S.–Venezuela Oil Deal: Control, Ownership and Sovereignty Under International Law

• Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in International Law

Conclusion

A US–Russia agreement cannot, on its own, reopen Nord Stream for commercial gas deliveries to Germany under the existing EU framework. Article 5af of Regulation 833/2014 restricts transactions associated with operating and using the pipelines, while Regulation 2026/261 separately prohibits imports of Russian natural gas, subject to limited transitional arrangements. These restrictions arise under different legal frameworks and must be addressed independently.

American investment, sanctions relief, and technical repairs could contribute to a future arrangement, but none would dispense with the applicable European restrictions or Germany's regulatory authority. A limited restart before the 2027 phase-out would require an eligible preexisting supply contract, resolution of the infrastructure prohibition, and satisfaction of every other applicable condition. The existence of an apparently intact Nord Stream 2 line does not establish that those conditions could be met within the remaining period.

After the transitional exemptions expire, a durable reopening would ordinarily require changes to the EU gas import legislation as well as resolution of the infrastructure-specific restrictions. Such decisions would depend on the competent European institutions, alongside German regulatory approval and commercial feasibility. Nord Stream's future may remain a subject of US–Russia diplomacy, but the legal authority to restore Russian gas deliveries to Germany cannot be supplied by Washington and Moscow alone.

References

Cantonal Court of Zug (2025) EN 2022 2: Court communications concerning Nord Stream 2 AG's debt restructuring [online]. 9 May and 3 June. Available at: https://zg.ch/de/news/2025/June/2025-06-03-kag-en-2022-2 (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP (2014) of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine. Official Journal of the European Union, L 229, 31 July, pp. 13–17, as amended. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014D0512 (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (2014) of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine. Official Journal of the European Union, L 229, 31 July, pp. 1–11, as amended. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014R0833 (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Council Regulation (EU) 2025/1494 (2025) of 18 July 2025 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine. Official Journal of the European Union, L, 2025/1494, 19 July. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/1494/oj/eng (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Council Regulation (EU) 2026/1848 (2026) of 23 July 2026 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine. Official Journal of the European Union, L, 2026/1848, 23 July. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1848/oj/eng (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Danish Energy Agency (2025) ‘Energistyrelsen giver tilladelse til arbejder ved Nord Stream 2-rørledningsanlægget i Østersøen’ [online]. 28 January. Available at: https://ens.dk/presse/energistyrelsen-giver-tilladelse-til-arbejder-ved-nord-stream-2-roerledningsanlaegget-i (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Directive (EU) 2024/1788 (2024) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on common rules for the internal markets for renewable gas, natural gas and hydrogen, amending Directive (EU) 2023/1791 and repealing Directive 2009/73/EC (recast). Official Journal of the European Union, L, 2024/1788, 15 July. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1788/oj/eng (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Energiewirtschaftsgesetz (EnWG) (2005) Gesetz über die Elektrizitäts- und Gasversorgung, 7 July 2005, BGBl. I, pp. 1970, 3621, as amended. Available at: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/enwg_2005/BJNR197010005.html (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) (2026) Nord Stream AG v Lloyd's Insurance Company SA & Anor, judgment, 6 July, [2026] EWHC 1685 (Comm). Available at: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/comm/2026/1685 (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

European Commission (2026a) Security of gas supply [online]. Available at: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-security/security-gas-supply_en (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

European Commission (2026b) EU-Norway energy cooperation [online]. Available at: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/international-cooperation/key-partner-countries-and-regions/norway_en (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

European Commission (2026c) ‘Commission takes action to ensure complete and timely transposition of EU directives – key decisions on energy’ [online]. 25 September. Available at: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/news/commission-takes-action-ensure-complete-and-timely-transposition-eu-directives-key-decisions-energy-2026-09-25_en (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Eurostat (2026) ‘EU trade with Russia – latest developments’, Statistics Explained [online]. 25 February. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/SEPDF/cache/104832.pdf (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Executive Order 14024 (2021) Blocking Property With Respect to Specified Harmful Foreign Activities of the Government of the Russian Federation, 15 April. Federal Register, 86 FR 20249, 19 April. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/DCPD-202100319 (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Executive Order 14039 (2021) Blocking Property With Respect to Certain Russian Energy Export Pipelines, 20 August. Federal Register, 86 FR 47205, 24 August. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-08-24/pdf/2021-18306.pdf (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (2022) ‘Minister Habeck comments on the situation in eastern Ukraine and the discontinuation of the certification procedure for Nord Stream 2’ [online]. 22 February. Available at: https://www.bundeswirtschaftsministerium.de/Redaktion/EN/Pressemitteilungen/2022/02/20220222-minister-habeck-comments-on-the-situation-in-eastern-ukraine-and-the-discontinuation-of-the-certification-procedure-for-nord-stream-2.html (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Federal Network Agency (2021) ‘Certification procedure for Nord Stream 2 suspended’ [online]. 16 November. Available at: https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2021/20211116_NOS2.html (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Federal Network Agency and Federal Cartel Office (2022) Monitoring Report 2022. Bonn: Bundesnetzagentur and Bundeskartellamt. Available at: https://data.bundesnetzagentur.de/Bundesnetzagentur/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Areas/ElectricityGas/CollectionCompanySpecificData/Monitoring/monitoringreport2022.pdf (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Gazprom (2017) ‘Nord Stream 2 AG and European energy companies sign financing agreements’ [online]. 24 April. Available at: https://www.gazprom.com/press/news/2017/april/article327190/ (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

General Court of the European Union (2025) Nord Stream 2 v Council, Case T-722/25, action brought on 13 October 2025. Official Journal of the European Union, C/2026/178, 12 January 2026. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/178/oj/eng (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

General Court of the European Union (2026) Nord Stream 2 v Parliament and Council, Case T-264/26, action brought on 27 April 2026. Official Journal of the European Union, C/2026/3080, 15 June. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/3080/oj/eng (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

German Federal Public Prosecutor (2026) ‘Arrest in relation to the suspected sabotage against the “Nord Stream” gas pipelines’ [online]. 19 August. Available at: https://www.presseportal.de/blaulicht/pm/14981/6336207 (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Hirtenstein, A. and Rashad, M. (2025) ‘US, Russia explore ways to restore Russian gas flows to Europe, sources say’, Reuters, 8 May [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-russia-explore-ways-restore-russian-gas-flows-europe-sources-say-2025-05-08/ (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 (2026) Public Law 119-111, 18 September 2026, 140 Stat. 1026. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-119publ111 (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Nord Stream AG (2014) The Nord Stream Pipeline Project. Fact sheet, August. Zug: Nord Stream AG. Available at: https://www.nord-stream.com/download/file/documents/pdf/en/2014/08/the-nord-stream-pipeline-project_12_20140805.pdf (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

O'Donnell, J., Slattery, G. and Gauthier-Villars, D. (2026) ‘US, Russia explore gas sale to Europe amid Ukraine war, say sources’, Reuters, 8 October [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-russia-explore-gas-sale-europe-amid-ukraine-war-say-sources-2026-10-08/ (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Protecting Europe's Energy Security Act of 2019 (2019) Title LXXV, sections 7501–7503, of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, Public Law 116-92, 20 December 2019, as amended. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-116publ92 (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Regulation (EU) 2024/1789 (2024) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on the internal markets for renewable gas, natural gas and hydrogen, amending Regulations (EU) No 1227/2011, (EU) 2017/1938, (EU) 2019/942 and (EU) 2022/869 and Decision (EU) 2017/684 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 (recast). Official Journal of the European Union, L, 2024/1789, 15 July. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1789/oj/eng (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Regulation (EU) 2026/261 (2026) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 January 2026 on phasing out Russian natural gas imports and preparing the phase-out of Russian oil imports, improving monitoring of potential energy dependencies and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/1938. Official Journal of the European Union, L, 2026/261, 2 February. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/261/oj/eng (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Reuters (2025) ‘Russia and US are in talks on Russian gas flows to Europe, Kremlin says’, Reuters, 9 May [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russia-us-are-talks-russian-gas-flows-europe-kremlin-says-2025-05-09/ (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2016) Consolidated version. Official Journal of the European Union, C 202, 7 June, pp. 47–200. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12016E/TXT (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

US Department of State (2021) ‘Nord Stream 2 and European energy security’ [online]. Press statement by Antony J. Blinken, 19 May. Available at: https://2021-2025.state.gov/nord-stream-2-and-european-energy-security/ (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

US Department of State (2022) ‘Sanctioning NS2AG, Matthias Warnig, and NS2AG's corporate officers’ [online]. Press statement by Antony J. Blinken, 23 February. Available at: https://2021-2025.state.gov/sanctioning-ns2ag-matthias-warnig-and-ns2ags-corporate-officers/ (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

US Department of State (2024) ‘Re-imposing sanctions on certain entities involved in Nord Stream 2’ [online]. Fact sheet, 18 December. Available at: https://2021-2025.state.gov/re-imposing-sanctions-on-certain-entities-involved-in-nord-stream-2/ (Accessed: 8 October 2026).

US Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (2024) ‘Balkans-related, Iran-related, non-proliferation, and Russia-related designations; issuance of Russia-related general licenses and frequently asked questions’ [online]. 18 December. Available at: https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20241218 (Accessed: 8 October 2026).